During his initial tenure as president, President-elect Donald Trump engaged in a series of contentious disputes with Democratic-led cities and states that had implemented sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants. Both sides are preparing for a second round.
During his initial presidency, some cities declared themselves sanctuaries and resisted cooperating with federal authorities by refusing to share information or surrender individuals in their custody to local law enforcement. As the Trump presidency enters its twilight days, many individuals are contemplating taking similar actions, despite knowing that such moves would likely prompt resistance from the administration.
Tom Homan, appointed by Trump as border czar, has revealed plans to make sanctuary cities targets for “crackdowns” under the incoming administration’s policies. As a contributor to Heritage Foundation’s Mission 2025 manifesto and fellow conservative thinker, Homan has emphasized his intent to increase cooperation between local law enforcement and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hand over undocumented immigrants in custody, with priority given to those posing a public security threat.
“What politician wouldn’t want to ensure public security in their own community?” “Their No. One of the primary duties is to protect and safeguard their respective communities. Let’s get started then!
Despite this stance, most Democratic leaders are adamant that federal authorities will not be allowed to overstep their boundaries when it comes to deportations, and they’re prepared to take legal action against Trump’s immigration policies if necessary.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Vox that while his office isn’t actively seeking a confrontation with the Trump administration, it will “fight back” if necessary to protect its progress. Immigration plays a crucial role in shaping our identity and forming the fabric of our society.
During his initial term, Trump’s efforts to curb sanctuary cities unfolded in two primary ways: imposing a threat to withhold federal funds and challenging their policies through legal action.
The Trump administration attempted to withhold federal law enforcement funding from sanctuary cities in 2017 by targeting their eligibility for certain grants? In a coordinated effort, multiple Democratic-led states and municipalities took legal action, with New York State, the City of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia filing lawsuits together with various other state attorneys general on their behalf.
Three appeal courts addressed these authorized challenges, setting the stage for a US Supreme Court showdown in 2020. Following Trump’s disputed election outcome in that year, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Biden administration’s appeal.
The issue remained unresolved, leaving unanswered questions about authority and jurisdiction. Despite this, Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and director of its office at New York University School of Law, noted that the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which defends states’ rights, provides a strong bulwark for sanctuary cities and states moving forward.
“I’m confident that we haven’t yet seen the culmination of this issue’s resolution, as announced by the Supreme Court.” “The Tenth Amendment provides a vital safeguard ensuring that states and local governments are not unfairly punished for not fully complying with federal directives.”
The Trump administration vigorously contested the legal provisions in court, contending that they hindered the government’s ability to enforce its federal immigration policy and were thereby unconstitutional.
A landmark legal framework, known as the “California Code,” was signed into law by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in 2017. The legislation prohibits state and native law enforcement agencies from collaborating with federal immigration authorities in various ways: They cannot inquire about an individual’s immigration status, make an arrest solely based on most immigration violations, disclose a person’s personal information to federal immigration officials except for publicly accessible data, or hand over someone in local police custody to federal immigration agents (subject to certain exceptions), and more?
The Trump administration had also taken issue with another California law, the Immigrant Employee Safety Act, which prohibited employers from disclosing employee information to immigration authorities without a court-ordered warrant or subpoena. Additionally, the requirement mandated that employers notify employees of impending inspections regarding their employment eligibility documentation, taking into account the absence of valid documents among undocumented immigrants.
A court of appeals ultimately affirmed the Values Act, but rejected provisions in the Immigrant Employee Safety Act that prohibited the sharing of records. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s appeal of that ruling, leaving the ultimate constitutional validity of the law in a state of uncertainty.
It’s possible that Trump will revive and build upon the strategies he employed to tackle sanctuary cities previously, leaving uncertainty about their viability in court, potentially paving the way for another round of legal disputes in the future?
President Trump is poised to take action against sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with his administration’s immigration policies. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommended that the incoming administration would consider prosecuting individuals who intentionally obstruct or impede federal immigration enforcement efforts.
“If you intentionally conceal or harbour an illegal immigrant from a law enforcement officer, it constitutes a felony.” When dealing with a federal law enforcement officer, one must understand that any attempt to impede their efforts can lead to serious consequences, making it essential not to cross that threshold. “We’ll continue to pursue these prosecutions, so you understand, don’t blame us!”
Trump’s advisors are reportedly reviving and intensifying their previous efforts to conditionally provide federal funding to Democratic cities that cooperate with federal immigration officials. While his initial term focused primarily on allocating law enforcement resources, insiders suggest that future initiatives may diversify funding streams. As governments receive federal funding for a broad array of initiatives, including infrastructure development and education programs, the scope of options to consider is undoubtedly vast.
“Not one iota, nor a single cent of presidential spending, should be allocated to subsidize this initiative,” said Vivek Ramaswamy, who was chosen by Trump to co-chair the effort just last month. “To deny sanctuary cities and federal support to individuals who find themselves in the United States illegally.”
Trump would likely face legal hurdles in attempts to withhold funding due to the 1974 legislation that constrains presidential authority. Even without a court challenge, Trump might have had more latitude to restrict funds to sanctuary cities without Congressional consent, assuming he could have efficiently pursued that option through legal means.
President Trump has been reportedly attempting to halt ICE arrests at sensitive locations, including colleges and churches. Can he accomplish this independently from scratch on his very first day on the job?
As the 2020 presidential election looms, a chorus of support for sanctuary city policies has emerged from mayors and attorneys across blue states, with key figures lining up to back this critical issue in the face of potential federal challenges under President Trump’s tenure.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has already vowed to take legal action against the administration if it attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions again.
The administration’s attempt to compel California to abide by federal standards was deemed unconstitutional, with the individual suggesting that this move was an overreach into the state’s sovereignty. “If they attempt to reinitiate this effort, we will take legal action once again and assert our 10th Amendment rights and state sovereignty to prevent the conditioning of grant funding on our organization.”
Bonta cautioned that President Trump’s attempt to deport U.S. citizens alongside their undocumented family members, a move he described as potentially unconstitutional, would likely infringe upon individuals’ fundamental right to due process.
While most of Bonta’s statements diverge from Trump’s agenda, a solitary anomaly exists: New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has demonstrated an openness to collaborate with the Trump administration on its immigration policies.
Adams is collaborating with the Trump administration to prioritize addressing violent individuals. He has consistently maintained a narrow focus, but advocacy groups for immigrant rights are wary that he may stray beyond that scope, fearing that New York City’s roughly half-a-million undocumented immigrants will become more vulnerable to deportation than they were during Trump’s previous presidency.
“New York City Mayor Eric Adams has consistently stigmatized and scapegoated undocumented immigrants, tarring them with accusations of denying them their rightful due process and exploiting them to deflect from his administration’s failures in managing the city’s finances.”
President-elect Adams has directed his authorized staff to convene with the incoming administration’s representatives to explore the feasibility of issuing an executive order that would supersede New York City’s sanctuary policies. Current municipal regulations impose restrictions on data exchange with federal immigration agencies and prohibit towns from complying with ICE demands for detaining individuals.
His administration is also exploring exemptions to the New York City law prohibiting ICE officers from entering city government buildings, he noted. The request would likely enable ICE to access the Rikers Island correctional facility’s jail cells, as requested by Commissioner Homan.
As the Democratic Party’s stance on immigration undergoes significant shifts, Adam’s posture serves as a poignant reflection of this tumultuous landscape, where record-high apprehensions at the southern border have been met with overwhelmed blue cities scrambling to absorb the influx of immigrants arriving by bus from neighboring states. Underneath President Biden’s leadership, Democrats surprisingly shifted away from their traditional emphasis on advocating for immigrants’ rights and highlighting their significant contributions to American society.
“This prolonged period of border arrivals has cast a lasting shadow over Australia’s immigration policy and politics, its impact still not fully understood,” Chishti said. “To suggest that welcoming every immigrant to our city without hesitation aligns with the Democratic Party’s core values, which currently seem elsewhere.”
While some Democrats are less enthusiastic about cooperating with the incoming Trump administration than Representative Adams, others have not publicly endorsed sanctuary policies as strongly.
Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker expressed uncertainty about the fate of the city’s sanctuary insurance policies, with her office clarifying to Vox that they remain in effect for the time being, according to a spokesperson. The lackluster commitment implies that instability might be spreading beyond New York City’s borders as well?
